Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Levelized cost of hydrogen for refueling stations with solar PV and

wind in Sweden: On-grid or off-grid?
Ou Tang, Jakob Rehme*, Pontus Cerin
€ping University, 581 83, Linko
Department of Management and Engineering, Linko €ping, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The European Union expects that hydrogen will play a vital role in future energy systems. Fuel cell
Received 11 February 2021 electric vehicles currently present a key development path for electrification of the transport sector,
Received in revised form which requires infrastructure investments of hydrogen refueling stations, preferably powered by re-
3 November 2021
newables such as solar and wind energy. The economic feasibility of refueling stations depends on
Accepted 11 December 2021
geographical locations. This study introduces a model to identify the key cost components of renewable
Available online 15 December 2021
hydrogen for refueling stations, and simulates the performance using solar radiation, wind speed, and
electricity price data in a selection of Swedish cities. The study demonstrates the importance of inte-
Keywords:
Hydrogen refueling
grating the electricity grid in green hydrogen production. Wind speed is crucial in reducing the cost,
Wind whereas solar radiation has less influence. In addition, a combination of solar and wind brings better
Solar PV performance in an off-grid scenario. The most encouraging finding is the cost of 35e72 SEK/kg (3.5e7.2
Energy policy V/kg), which is competitive with reported costs in other EUcountries, especially since this cost excludes
Renewable energy any government support scheme. The study provides a reference for investors and policy makers fore-
seeing the industrial landscape for hydrogen energy development.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction establish hydrogen refueling stations.

Many countries are undergoing a transition towards renewable
and more sustainable energy systems. The efforts encompass
multiple trajectories and involve several industrial sectors. Ac-
cording to Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [1]; electri-
fication of the transport sector has been put on the agenda during
the last decade in Sweden, to phase out fossil fuels, as this sector
emits the lion's share of the nation's greenhouse gases (GHGs). Fuel
cell electric vehicles (FCEV) currently present an important means
of reducing GHG emissions, especial for long-haul trucks, ships,
buses, and trains [2,3]. There is a growing body of literature her-
alding hydrogen as a way to abate GHG emissions [4e9]. According
to the EU strategy on hydrogen, more than 6 GW of green hydrogen
from electrolyzers should be installed within the EU between 2020
and 2024, increasing to 40 GW before 2030 [7,10]. Developing green
hydrogen aligns with the EU hydrogen strategy, where hydrogen is
said to play an important role in the EU's energy transformation
[11]. Therefore, it is important to produce green hydrogen and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ou.tang@liu.se (O. Tang), jakob.rehme@liu.se (J. Rehme),
pontus.cerin@liu.se (P. Cerin).
Even though FCEVs have the advantage of providing solution for
long-distance transport, introducing them on the market still in-
volves considerable challenges. Estimated high fuel costs and lack
of a hydrogen infrastructure are two major barriers for customers
[12]. Hydrogen infrastructure and its investment costs need to be
evaluated in order to understand the requirements on policies for
hydrogen development [13].
In Sweden, solar PV (photovoltaic) and wind power are two
alternatives for producing hydrogen via electrolysis, and these two
renewables have received increasing attention [9,14]. Since 2003,
Sweden has issued a certificate system to encourage renewables for
electricity production, including solar and wind. However, the
increasing dependency on wind and solar in Sweden's electrical
grid increases electricity price volatility [15]. For traditional elec-
tricity producers, such as nuclear and hydraulic power plants, there
are significant time periods during the year that the electricity price
in the market is very low. In this case, it has been suggested that the
produced electricity produces hydrogen for short-term or seasonal
storage instead of dispatching the electricity grid [15,16]. Never-
theless, such a centralized production of hydrogen often fits well
with hydrogen applications in an industry where the demand
volume is high, whereas it may not be feasible for refueling

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122906
0360-5442/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin
stations.
Five hydrogen refueling stations have recently been installed in
Sweden, for pilot, technical feasibility, and business demonstration
purposes. Our study refers to one currently operating hydrogen
refueling station in Mariestad PV solar park, which already has
solar PV panels, electrolyzer, compressor, and storage equipment
installed. This off-grid station integrates renewable electricity
generation and hydrogen production and provides reference data
for investment, technical operations, information of basic system
settings in this study. Also, our data (solar radiation and solar PV
output) will be compared with their operational outputs to ensure
the data quality. Even though the Mariestad refueling station is
designed as a stand-alone system without grid electricity, our
assessment will include a comparison between on-grid and off-grid
solutions and will be extended to other location sites.
Motivated by the above background, this study investigates the
economic feasibility of hydrogen refueling stations using solar and
wind power as main energy inputs in Sweden. More specifically, we
investigate the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) of hydrogen
supply chains to provide hydrogen for refueling stations in various
locations cities in Sweden that represent typical geographic fea-
tures, such as wind speed and solar radiation. The system encom-
passes major investment costs such as wind, solar PV, compression,
hydrogen storage, and the study inputs are wind speed data, solar
irradiation, and grid electricity price (depending on the scenario).
The investigation includes nine cities in Sweden, namely Mariestad,
Halmstad, Gothenburg, Stockholm, Linko € ping, Karlstad, Borla
€nge,
Falsterbo-Skåne, Hoburg-Gotland. However, only the first four cit-
ies are presented as representatives as others have similar results.
In the study, we collected the technical and operational data
from the refueling station in Mariestad, as well as data on solar
radiation, wind, and electricity prices, to analyze various alterna-
tives and evaluate the respective cost components. Furthermore,
we study the choice of infrastructure and the impact of location
selection. The study results should provide a guideline for investors
and policy makers to plan the future hydrogen system, and to
design a transition path to a more sustainable energy system.
2. A brief review of hydrogen production and hydrogen
refueling
The current study aims to develop a simple model to capture the
major factors associated with a decentralized hydrogen production
attached with a refueling station. The electricity is mainly provided
by the dedicated wind and/or solar PV, with both off- and on-grid
options. The model and the results should present an overview of
potential future developments in Sweden for hydrogen facilities,
encompassing decentralized hydrogen production and refueling
stations. To provide a more comprehensive understanding, in this
section we present relevant studies investigating alternative
hydrogen production, and then more specifically hydrogen pro-
duction for refueling stations. We also present reference values for
hydrogen production. Special attention is given to the values for
refueling stations in other regions, which include equipment costs,
operational costs, and the subsequent price of hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels and renewable
energy resources [5,6,13,17]. For a brief review of different road
paths for hydrogen production, their potential and associated lim-
itations, we refer to Ref. [14]. To understand the GHG impact,
hydrogen has been color-coded in the policy discussion. Grey and
blue hydrogen are defined as produced from fossil fuels, with the
addition that blue hydrogen also involves carbon capture and
storage [5]. Green hydrogen is defined as being produced from
renewables, either from renewable biomass or by electrolysis, using
2
Energy 241 (2022) 122906
electricity from renewables [7]. Kakoulaki et al. [7] argued that
biomass has great potential as an industrial feedstock in circular
systems, but it remains at a laboratory or pilot scale and is therefore
excluded from further investigation (also cf [1,8]. There are, argu-
ably, several green hydrogen solutions, but some renewables have
non-negligible GHG emissions, whereas electrolysis using renew-
able electricity, such as wind and solar, results in hydrogen with
very much lower GHG emissions [5]. Hydrogen produced from
electrolysis with renewables is in line with the EU's climate
neutrality goals [7] and also with the purpose of our study.
If hydrogen is produced from electrolysis, a vital cost element or
influential factor is the cost of electricity. Schenk et al. [18] con-
ducted such a study using off-peak wind power in the Netherlands.
The study concluded that hydrogen is a feasible solution when the
installed wind power capacity is sufficiently large and this
hydrogen production facility even constitutes a mean to stabilize
the electricity grid. They also argued that hydrogen production has
a greater potential in countries with a more “… rigid power plant
park …” ([18] p. 1968), such as Sweden and France, which have
considerable shares of nuclear power in the grids [16,19]. Tlili et al.
[16] conducted a study on French hydrogen production, using
electricity surplus, with scenarios till 2035. The analysis included
potential locations in various French regions, with their specific
conditions regarding surplus electricity. The study concluded that
renewable electricity generation on its own is insufficient to sup-
port hydrogen production in an economically feasible scale. To
reach higher levels of hydrogen production, currently available
nuclear power is needed [16], and hydrogen production locations
are reliant on various regions’ situations regarding installed power
and suitability for the production of renewable electricity. Similarly,
Tang et al. [19] stated that hydrogen production based on electricity
surplus from a nuclear power plant constitutes an efficient
component for transiting towards new renewable electricity in
Sweden. This means that it is important to understand the system
in which the hydrogen is to be produced and that it is also vital to
examine the various locations for electricity and hydrogen
production.
In this view, the electrolyzer's capital costs, utilization (oper-
ating hours), and the electricity price greatly affect the cost of
hydrogen production [7,19]. The costs of electrolyzers are
decreasing and are predicted to be halved by 2050, while renew-
able electricity costs continue to decrease [7]. From a total cost
perspective, it is often argued that hydrogen must be compared
with the current infrastructure of fossil fuel stations and vehicles
with a traditional internal combustion engine [20,21]. There are
several feasibility studies and cost estimates that range from:

Centralized large-scale hydrogen production [19].

Feasibility studies of grid integration [16,18].

Studies that include distribution costs to fuel stations [21,22].

Decentralized or off-grid PV or wind-powered hydrogen pro-
duction in combination with electricity storage or charging
[21,23,24].
Other recent studies have discussed the hydrogen costs for
refueling stations. Campín ~ ez-Romero et al. [25] conducted a feasi-
bility assessment of a hydrogen refueling station network for FCEVs
in Spain, using taxis in Madrid as the case. The authors concluded
that a hydrogen infrastructure would only be possible with gov-
ernment support and subsidies about 50% of capital expenditures,
50% of operating costs and 50% tax exemptions over the course of
25 years. Brey et al. [21] also conducted a hydrogen cost comparison
for refueling stations across different scenarios in Spain. The cost
included production, distribution, and dispensing, as well as the
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin
added profit margins. They concluded that, in the best circum-
stances, the resulting average total cost of hydrogen was approxi-
mately 5V/kg hydrogen, based on natural gas reforming. Although
Brey et al. did not calculate the total cost for hydrogen produced
from electrolysis, using their cost estimates would mean a cost of
ca. 11V/kg. In Brey et al.‘s estimation, the break-even price, corre-
sponding to the petrol cost per km for a consumer using a
passenger-sized road vehicle, was 9V/kg hydrogen, and this can be
set as the reference level of hydrogen cost at a refueling station.
The background review in this section shows that the cost ele-
ments and cost level of hydrogen depends largely on the setting of
hydrogen production; that is, centralized production vs. decen-
tralized production, inclusive vs. exclusive distribution cost, loca-
tion, and government subsidy, etc. This means that it is important
to examine the local conditions for generating electricity, since this
will impact the available electricity and thus the corresponding
costs and market prices.
3. System assumptions
3.1. Layout
The Mariestad hydrogen refueling station is used as a reference
setting in this study. The Mariestad hydrogen refueling station
targets to produce maximal 47,000 kg H2 per year. The refueling
station is designed as a stand-alone (off-grid) system with solar
power as the only input resource for green hydrogen production.
Extending from this basic setting, we also propose that the refu-
eling station be connected to the wind or electricity grid. When the
electricity grid is connected (on-grid), electricity is supplied, fully
or partly, by the grid, or, in surplus situations, sold back to the grid.
After the converting process in the electrolyzer, hydrogen is
stored in tanks via a compressor. The storage has the role of man-
aging seasonal demand variations, as well as inter-day supply
changes. A simplified layout is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the main
equipment costs are wind turbines, solar PVs, electrolyzer
(including compressor), and storage tanks. Excluding and including
grid will define our off-grid and on-grid scenarios. In the case of
Mariestad, solar PV, electrolyzer, compressor, and storage are
considered to be the main components of the refueling station,
which are also viewed as the study boundary in this research. The
associated investment are the main cost components in hydrogen
production in a refueling station, or alternatively hydrogen supply
cost to a refueling station (without distribution cost).
In this study we focus on the cost components of hydrogen
production, and therefore, only the supply side. The diffusion of the
hydrogen market and demand patterns (seasonal, daytime de-
mand) are left for future investigation.
Fig. 1. Layout of the facilities.
3
Energy 241 (2022) 122906
3.2. Economic and technical information
The hydrogen production includes the initial investment costs
and operational and maintenance costs. As fuel is not needed, the
main operational cost is water consumption. Revenues from the by-
product such as oxygen (Table 2) and electricity (if applicable in the
on-grid scenario) are included in the model.
We consider both wind turbines and solar PV panels with
250 kW as the base unit. This is the installed solar capacity to cope
with the installed electrolyzer (270 kW) in Mariestad. We note that
the aim is to investigate the impact of solar PV and wind on the
economic performance. The equipment size and its investment
costs are assumed to be linear when the capacity varies between
one to four base units. The economic and technical details are
illustrated in Table 1.
4. Data
4.1. Data source and power model
Three main sources of uncertainty exist in this study: solar ra-
diation, wind speed, and electricity price in the market.
Solar radiation on an hourly basis can be estimated by using
models such as Zhang et al. [26]. Another alternative is to obtain the
radiation in different locations if data is available. In the EU Science
Hub database [27]; hourly radiation data is available for 12 years
between 2005 and 2016 and is used as the data source in this study.
The setting of the solar PV installation is shown in Table 3, using
Mariestad as the example. The parameters are used as inputs in EU
Science Hub database to obtain directly the solar radiation and
solar PV power outputs. The latter is then used directly in the
simulation.
Also, many studies have estimated wind speed and wind power
through mathematical modelling, including the consideration of
spatial and temporal dependence, to improve the modelling out-
comes [9]. In this study we obtain the hourly wind speed data from
the same source during the same periods, and then convert it to
wind power. As the wind speed is measured at 10 m above the
ground level, it is extrapolated to 100 m, corresponding to the
height of many wind turbine hubs. We follow the power law profile
method as depicted in wind power studies (cf. Manwell et al. [28]
and Homer Energy [29]:

a
Z
X¼ Xr (1)
Zr
where X and Xr are the wind speed at the hub and reference level, Z
and Zr are hub and reference height, respectively. The power law
exponenta is affected by factors such as surrounding, temperature,
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Table 1
Investment costs of main equipment and economic data of a hydrogen refueling station (1V ¼ 10 SEK).

Capacity Investment cost Note

Station
Electrolyzer 270 kW 6.8 million SEK
Compressor 2.5 million SEK Coped with electrolyzer
Other equipment 1.8 million SEK
Sum 11.1 million SEK Site information
Solar panel 250 kW 1.75 million SEK Site information
Wind turbine 250 kW 5 million SEK
Storage (one unit) 1900 Kg Hydrogen 1.95 million SEK Site information
Cost of capital 6% [15]
Maintenance cost 1% of initial investment Site information
Lifetime of project 20 years

Table 2
Technical and operating data.

Parameter Value Unit Note

Capacity H2 47 000 kg/year

Capacity O2 354 000 kg/year Production rate O2/H2 ¼ 7.53 kg
Price O2 0.34 SEK/kg Int. market, 40$/ton
Consumption electricity 48.9 kWh/kg H2
Consumption water 10 liter/kg H2
Electricity price variable
Water price 0.05 SEK/liter

Table 3 the locations in this study. The hourly electricity price is available
Solar PV panel data, example of Mariestad. for 2020, but the price is substantially lower than previous years.
Latitude 58.711
This is mainly due to low economic activity in the pandemic period,
Longitude 13.824 so the market data in 2020 is not representative. Therefore, we
Elevation (m) 54 exclude the electricity price data from 2020.
Radiation database PVGIS-SARAH
Slope 10 deg.
Azimuth 45 deg. 4.2. Overview of data
Nominal power of PV 250.0 kWp
System losses 14.0%
We collect data from nine cities in southern Sweden. However,
this paper reports only four representative cities, or places in
proximity to Mariestad, Halmstad, Gothenburg, and Stockholm.
and humidity. A typical a varies between 0.1 and 0.3 [30], and this
With 250 kW installed capacity respectively of solar PV and wind
study adapts a ¼ 1/7 (so-called 1/7 power law, [30,31]. Further-
power generators, and hourly data over 12 years, we illustrate the
more, the wind speed is transferred into power output, which is the
results in Table 4. The solar PV has an average hourly power output
installed capacity multiplied with the output factor indicated as
ranging from 26.25 kWh to 28.07 kWh, with a small variation be-
8

  tween the four cities. We also calculate the capacity factor (CF),
< 1 erfc X  xmid þ 1 ; if X < Pcut
> which is defined as the ratio between actual electricity output
FðXÞ ¼ 2 xscale (2) versus the installed capacity [16]. The solar PV has an average CF
>
:
0; if X  Pcut value between 10.51% and 11.24%.
On the other hand, the wind speed differs widely, with the
where erfc is the error function. When wind speed X is lower than lowest average 3.52 m/s in Mariestad, and the highest 6.72 m/s in
Pcut , the cutting wind speed, F(X) exhibits an “S” curve. Xmid and Stockholm. The CF ranges from 11.57% to 50.71%. The output in
Xscale are parameters that define the position of “S00 curve. When the Stockholm is rather high. The exact location of the place we call
wind speed X is beyond Pcut , the wind turbine will be stopped. For Stockholm is Stavsna €s in the archipelago, where a high wind tur-
details of the model, see Johnson et al. [32]. This study adapts the bine output has been reported by Siyal et al. [35]. We also note that
parameters, Pcut ¼ 25, xmid ¼ 10 and xscale ¼ 4. This power output the CFs of solar PV and wind will affect the capacity factor of
curve obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) is compared with the power electrolyzer and therefore the cost of hydrogen (see Section 5 for
output curve of the commercial wind turbines of Vestas with details).
similar size, in order to ensure that the two curves fit well, and Using 2016 data, we can illustrate the hourly power outputs of
subsequently our models (Eqs. (1) and (2)) and the associated pa- four cities (see Appendix 1). The solar PV has a strong seasonal
rameters are properly set [33]. pattern, whereas a wind turbine is more intermittent. The four
In addition, hourly electricity prices are retrieved from Nordpool cities differ considerably in terms of average wind power outputs.
Spot [34] between 2013 and 2019 (for seven years). Since the Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 included monthly and hourly average electricity
electricity market in Sweden is divided into four regions, we select outputs of corresponding time in different years for PV and wind
those regions (Regions 3 and 4) where all the example cities are respectively. We now investigate the base unit of solar PV equip-
located. ment (250 kW) with the electrolyzer. This is the actual setting in
We need to note that the solar radiation data and wind speed Mariestad. According to Fig. 2, the electricity output has some
data in EU Science Hub is only available between 2005 and 2016 for variations between the years, but the seasonal pattern is
4
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Table 4
Capacity factor (%) of solar PV and wind.

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average

Mariestad Solar ¼ 26.25 kWh, wind speed ¼ 3.52 m/sa

Solar PV 10.94 10.21 10.32 10.29 10.27 10.00 10.68 10.25 10.75 10.70 11.02 10.67 10.51
Wind 12.26 10.76 14.05 14.29 11.18 9.34 14.25 8.77 8.57 7.79 13.97 13.63 11.57
Halmstad Solar ¼ 27.09 kWh, wind speed ¼ 4.26 m/sa
Solar PV 11.59 10.69 10.85 10.96 11.46 10.53 10.92 10.17 11.20 10.96 10.83 9.96 10.84
Wind 20.69 18.91 25.78 25.52 21.66 16.72 20.76 16.05 14.51 15.36 20.48 23.71 20.01
Gothenburg Solar power ¼ 27.56 kWh, wind speed ¼ 5.21 m/sa
Solar PV 11.35 10.81 10.83 11.39 11.45 10.86 10.93 10.41 11.34 11.00 11.10 10.91 11.03
Wind 48.56 45.79 52.06 49.81 48.59 16.22 22.74 18.58 17.65 16.84 21.85 22.39 31.76
Stockholm Solar power ¼ 28.07 kWh, wind speed ¼ 6.72 m/sa
Solar PV 11.31 11.15 10.66 11.34 11.25 10.99 11.69 10.95 11.98 11.37 11.40 10.73 11.24
Wind 49.32 45.22 50.28 50.37 46.39 48.74 55.66 55.55 51.36 51.06 54.68 49.90 50.71
a
Yearly average speed.

Fig. 2. Average electricity output in different years (with different legend colors) between 2005 and 2016 with one base unit of solar PV. (For interpretation of the references to color
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Average electricity output in different years (with different legend colors) between 2005 and 2016 with one base unit of wind. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

considerably obvious with highest output in June. The main elec-
tricity output occurs between March and September, with the peak
in June. The hourly output also shows a distinct daily pattern. In the
investigation, the peak output occurred as 188 kWh at 12 noon on
May 30, 2011. Since it is still smaller than the electrolyzer capacity,
all electricity from solar PV will be supplied to the electrolyzer.
Supplying electricity to the electricity grid is impossible in the
current setting.
According to Fig. 3, the variation between the years is larger
when we aggregate the monthly wind data. The lowest output from
wind generators occurs in June and July. The hourly output is higher
in the daytime than in the night-time. Interestingly, if we combined
solar PV and wind for producing electricity, the outputs comple-
ment from a seasonal perspective (monthly), but there is no such
advantage on the daily basis. This brings the interest of combing the
solar PV and wind resources for hydrogen production.
The electricity price pattern is more difficult to observe.
5
Actually, electricity price is determined not only by wind and solar,
but also by resources such as hydro, nuclear, and biomass. Addi-
tional factors such as random electricity demand, economic con-
ditions, and international fuel prices also have an influence. Such
complexity makes the electricity price difficult to forecast [36].
Nevertheless, electricity price is generally less expensive in sum-
mer than in winter (Fig. 4). Also, the daily pattern of electricity price
is more obvious, as it often reaches a peak at 8:00 and 9:00, and
then the second peak at 18:00 and 19:00 (Fig. 4). In this study we
define 8:00e19:00 as the peak time of the day, and the rest as off-
peak.
5. Economic evaluation based on LCOH
We use Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH, measure as SEK per
kg) for the economic performance of hydrogen production. LCOH is
defined as discounted cash flows divided by the discount hydrogen
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Fig. 4. Average electricity price in different years (with different legend colors) between 2013 and 2019. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the Web version of this article.)

output size Ist can be determined accordingly. In this study, a simulation is

used to obtain these values.
P Ii þMi þOi Ri
In case of off-grid, with Wt (kWh) and St (kWh) indicating elec-
ð1þrÞi
LCOH ¼ i tricity power supply at hour t from wind and solar PV, respectively,
P Ei
(3)
the hydrogen production is the minimum of the sum, and the
ð1þrÞi
i electrolyzer capacity Cel

where. Pt ¼ minðWt þ St ; Cel Þ (7)

Ii: investment in year i, SEK.
Mi: maintenance and service cost in year i, SEK. which is rewritten in case of on-grid
Oi: operational cost in year i, SEK.

Ei: energy (hydrogen) output in year i, kg. minðWt þ St ; Cel Þ; for peak hour
Ri: revenue income in year i, SEK Pt ¼ (8)
Cel ; for off  peak hour
r: cost of capital, %
As the aim is to investigate the cost components, the cash flows At time t, electricity buying (ELb,t) and selling (ELs,t) can be
and the hydrogen output are simplified as constants along with the written as
years. The above formula is simplified to
ELb;t ¼ maxðPt  ðWt þ St Þ; 0Þ (9)
P 1
ðI þ M þ O  RÞ
ð1þrÞi ðI þ M þ O  RÞ
i
LCOH ¼ P 1
¼ (4) ELs;t ¼ maxððWt þ St Þ  Pt ; 0Þ (10)
E E
ð1þrÞi
i According to Table 2, converting from electricity to hydrogen
Note that I is interpreted as the annutity of initial investment I0 follows a constant (48.9 kWh/kg H2). In both on-grid and off-grid
P i I0 ,r cases, the hydrogen storage level at time t, which is indicated as
such that I0 ¼ N i¼1 I,ð1 þ rÞ . Thus I ¼ N . As the mainte-
1ð1þrÞ IVNt and is expressed in the corresponding electricity (kWh), is
nance cost M can also be largely viewed as proportional (g) of the
initial investment I0, we have IVNt ¼ IVNt1 þ Pt  Dt (11)
! ! Indicating that the hydrogen level equals its level of previous
r I0 OR r I 1
LCOH¼ N
þg þ ¼ N
þg 0 period, adding hydrogen production (Pt) and subtracting hydrogen
1ð1þrÞ E E 1ð1þrÞ C el CF demand (Dt). We note that in this study, Dt is assigned as a constant
OR so that the total yearly demand equals total yearly supply of
þ hydrogen. This simplification may not reflect the reality, but it
Cel ,CF
should capture the scale effect of producing hydrogen and thereby
(5)
LCOH, which are the focus of this investigation. In addition, in a
As the initial investment is mainly contributed from electrolyser refueling station, the long-run average demand (daily or weekly) is
Iel (including the compressor and other equipment), solar PV Isp, fairly stable. The uneven short-term demand (hourly) can be lev-
wind turbine Iwt, and storage tank Ist, we obtain elized by the storage, and therefore the assumption of a constant
demand can be justified. In the simulation model, we assign the
!
r Iel þ Isp þ Iwt þ Ist 1 OR hydrogen level as zero at time t ¼ 0, and calculate It for t ¼ 1, 2,
LCOH ¼ N
þg þ …,8760. The storage capacity is calculated as
1  ð1 þ rÞ Cel CFel Cel ,CFel
Csto ¼ maxðIVNt Þ  minðIVNt Þ; t ¼ 1; 2…; 8760 (12)
(6)
When we need to calculate the hydrogen storage in kg, we
where Cel is the hydrogen output if the electrolyzer runs with the divide the above variables with the constant 48.9 kWh/kg H2, cf.
fully installed capacity (kW), and CFel is the capacity factor of Table 2. We note that The purpose here is not to calculate the en-
electrolyzer. When the installed capacities of solar PV, wind, elec- ergy content of each kg hydrogen, but rather covert electricity
trolyzer are fixed, the operational cost O, revenue R and CFel are the (kWh) to hydrogen (kg). As our information source by an electro-
result of operational environment, such as the solar radiation and lyser producer, producing each kg hydrogen consumes 48.9 kW h
wind speed. In addition, the investment associated with storage electricity, including the efficiency and losses. Thus, we view
6
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

48.9 kWh/kg as a constant converting factor, i.e. 48.9 kWh elec- Table 6
tricity is equivalent to 1 kg hydrogen, and vice verse.In the opera- LCOH and cost components with one base unit of wind turbine.

tion of the refueling station, at least one storage unit (1900 kg Cost element/price/CF Mariestad Halmstad Gothenburg Stockholm
hydrogen) should be installed. Also note that the storage capacity is Refueling Station annuity 55.5% 55.8% 50.5% 51.0%
the outcome of simulation, and it affects the investment. Utilizing Solar PV annuity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
different production alternatives, we can estimate the total costs in Wind turbine annuity 25.0% 25.1% 22.8% 23.0%
the hydrogen refueling station by using the simulation. Storage Annuity 9.8% 9.8% 17.86% 17.9%
Subtotal annuity 90.3% 90.7% 91.1% 91.9%
Maintenance cost 10.4% 10.4% 10.5% 10.5%
6. Simulation analysis Operation cost 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6%
O2 income 0.8% 1.3% 1.9% 3.0%
We combine 12 years of solar radiation and wind speed data and Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
LCOH, SEK/kg H2 336 194 135 84
seven years of electricity price data, all on an hourly basis, to Capacity Factor 11.1% 19.1% 30.3% 48.4%
simulate the electricity output, hydrogen production, and subse-
quently the hydrogen storage size, and other results with 84 rep-
lications. We investigate scenarios with off-grid and on-grid
compared with solar PV. In addition, with a high wind speed, an
alternatives, and various combinations of installed capacities for
increasing hydrogen volume demands a large storage cost (see
electricity production. The difference between off-grid and on-grid
Gothenburg and Stockholm cases).
alternatives is due to excluding and including the grid option; see
Fig. 1. The installed electrolyzer capacity remains the same.
6.1.3. Combination of solar PV and wind
We further investigate the results when solar PV and wind
6.1. Off-grid
turbine are combined for supplying electricity. We have solar PV
and wind turbine varying from zero to four units. After excluding
This section investigates the results when the electricity grid is
zero-unit solar PV and zero-unit wind case, we obtained 24 com-
disconnected.
binations. The results are illustrated in Fig. 5, a plot of LCOH and CF
of the electrolyzer. The figure includes the cases of wind only (blue),
6.1.1. Base unit of solar PV
solar only (orange), and solar and wind combination (grey). The
We first investigate the case using only solar PV for electricity
special cases of equal installed units (capacity) of solar PV and wind
supply. We begin with the solar PV with an installed capacity of
are highlighted with the mark “x”.
250 kW (one base unit). With this setting, LCOH is as high as 304
First, obviously a stand-alone wind alternative is not necessarily
SEK/kg, with minor variations among four cities (Table 5). The
better than that of solar PV. This is easily explained as the high
major cost comes from the capital cost (90.32e90.36%), as the CFel
capital cost of wind turbine, for instance when the wind speed is
(CF of electrolyzer) is rather low (10.03e10.35%). This is obvious, as
low (Mariestad). When wind speed is relatively high (Halmstad,
the electricity output is rather low compared with its demand in
average wind speed of 4.26 m/s), the wind alternative already be-
this off-grid system, and the electrolyzer is limitedly utilized, which
comes competitive. In the cases of Gothenburg and Stockholm, the
increases the capital cost (see subtotal annuity). In addition, even
advantage of wind turbine becomes obvious.
with the low CFel, the storage still contributes to 11.90% of LCOH
In all cities, compared with the stand-alone alternatives,
combining solar and wind improves the performance; that is, CFel
6.1.2. Base unit of wind increases and LCOH reduces (Fig. 5). This result supports the sug-
Further, we examine wind power with one base unit (250 kW). gestion that an integrated solar PV and wind system could create a
The results differ largely in four cities. LCOH can reduce to 84 SEK/kg pooling effect of electricity supply, and therefore a better outcome.
in a windy city (Stockholm), or remain high as 336 SEK/kg in a Also, importantly, there is a Pareto frontier for the combinations.
much less windy city (Mariestad) (see Table 6). This is quite ex- Recall that we often expect a lower LCOH with a high CFel. In most
pected. With wind power and a strong supply of electricity, CFel cases, when the installed capacity of solar PV and wind is equal
increases and therefore so does the total production of hydrogen, (“solar ¼ wind”) and each with installed unit larger than 2 (alter-
which further reduces LCOH. Nevertheless, the total capital cost of natively 500 kW), the system performance is located in the Pareto
initial investment (including storage) still stands for 90.26e91.92%, frontier. The only exception is Mariestad, where two units of wind
but the distribution of cost components differs. The electrolyzer and two units of solar PV result in an inferior solution, because the
cost is reduced, but the wind turbine cost increases. This is caused wind turbine receives a very low CF due to a low wind speed.
by the expensive (per kWh) installed capacity of wind turbine Nevertheless, when the corresponding number increases to 3, the
results again become the Pareto frontier.
Table 5 Compared with the cases in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, LCOH is
LCOH and cost components with one base unit of solar PV. reduced dramatically. In the ideal case of Stockholm, the off-grid
system can have a lowest LCOH 71 SEK/kg, and corresponding CF
Cost element/price/CF Mariestad Halmstad Gothenburg Stockholm
75%.
% as the total cost
Refueling Station annuity 67.7% 67.8% 67.8% 67.8%
Solar PV annuity 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 10.7% 6.2. On-grid supply
Wind turbine annuity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Storage Annuity 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% The on-grid case supplies electricity from the grid when elec-
Subtotal annuity 90.3% 90.3% 90.4% 90.4%
tricity from solar PV and wind is insufficient. In this study, we
Maintenance cost 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4%
Operation cost 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% further specify that the grid electricity supply is allowed between
O2 income 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 20:00 and 7:00, the off-peak time when the electricity price is
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% normally low. The electricity price (both buying and selling) is set
LCOH, SEK/kg H2 304 294 289 284 as two multiplies with the price in Nordpool Spot [34]; which is
Capacity Factor 10.0% 10.4% 10.5% 10.7%
considered as the reference for price fluctuation.
7
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Fig. 5. LCOH and CFel for different capacity combinations with off-grid condition.

The on-grid opportunity provides a flexible electricity supply.
This change improves CFel and reduces LCOH significantly compared
with the off-grid cases (see Fig. 6). However, we need be careful
when designing the electricity supply. In Mariestad, it seems that
stand-alone solar PV will be the solution for reducing LCOH to about
70 SEK/kg. Investing in wind turbines will end with a high wind
turbine investment. In Halmstad, solar PV will be the best solution.
The combination of wind will improve LCOH, but the improvement
is marginal compared with the solution of 4 units of solar PV. In
both Gothenburg and Stockholm, using wind turbines will reduce

Fig. 6. LCOH and CFel for different capacity combinations with on-grid condition.

8
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

LCOH below 40 SEK/kg. Combining solar PV and wind can further Table 7
reduce LCOH, but the improvement is marginal in these two cities. Required storage capacities in Mariestad.

Recall that, in Fig. 6, CF indicates the capacity factor of electro- n 1 2 3 4

lyzer. This includes the hydrogen production using electricity both Off grid case
from solar PV and wind (renewable), and from the grid. To be able Storage (kg)
to compare, we re-calculate the previous cases, but focus on the Wind 902 1531 1821 1984
percentage of hydrogen produced by using solar PV/wind elec- Solar 1389 2421 2843 3087
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 1102 1558 1607 1590
tricity (which is defined as green hydrogen, cf. Section 2), with
Storage/H2 production
results in Fig. 7. Fig. 7 reveals that the cost improvement is largely Wind 0.1741 0.1607 0.1454 0.1343
due to the opportunity of grid-electricity (comparing Figs. 6 and 7). Solar 0.2951 0.2852 0.2737 0.2660
This seems particularly important in Mariestad and Halmstad. In Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.1127 0.0939 0.0792 0.0698
On grid case
the cases of Gothenburg and Stockholm, a high output from wind
Storage (kg)
turbine reduces such a gap. Wind 468 751 863 915
Solar 1328 2271 2612 2775
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 1239 1762 1788 1729
6.3. Impact of hydrogen storage Storage/H2 production
Wind 0.0177 0.0259 0.0281 0.0287
Solar 0.0475 0.0719 0.0784 0.0808
As storage also impacts the initial investment, we investigate
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0401 0.0493 0.0471 0.0440
the capacity requirement of hydrogen storage in different settings.
Recall that solar PV, wind, and electricity price are inputs for the
simulation, whereas the requirement of storage capacity is one
When solar PV and wind are combined, the storage capacity can
output. As the supply of electricity fluctuated along with time (if it
be largely reduced. We calculate the ratio of storage capacity vs.
is supplied by solar PV and Wind), the hydrogen production varies.
yearly hydrogen production, cf. Table 7, Table 8, Tables 9 and 10 This
The hydrogen storage is used for leveling the variance raising from
index essentially explains the usage efficiency of the storage. For
demand and supply unbalance. The storage capacity is calculated as
instance, in Table 7 as the storage for one base unit of wind, we have
Eqs. (11) and (12), with results illustrated in Table 7, Table 8, Table 9,
the index 0.1741 (year), which is about 2.01 months. This is inter-
Table 10.
preted as the system needing hydrogen storage equivalent to (on
First in the off-grid case, as the installed capacity of wind or
average) two months’ demand. Apparently, a small value of the
solar PV increases, hydrogen storage capacity needs to increase, but
index indicates a high efficiency. We see that solar PV needs a high
increases more quickly in the solar PV cases. In windy cities such as
capacity, whereas wind requires less. In the off-grid cases, the
Gothenburg and Stockholm, the storage capacity reduces as the
combined solar PV and wind system always reduced the require-
wind capacity increases. This is explained as the redundant ca-
ment of storage compared with individual solar PV and individual
pacity compared with the electrolyzer. Nevertheless, the results
wind systems. This is due to the fact that, on a monthly basis, the
indicate that the storage for solar PV cases mainly serves for sea-
power supply from solar PV and wind has a complementary effect;
sonal balance, whereas it is needed for intra-days variation for wind
see Figs. 2 and 3 (monthly average electricity output). As a result,
cases.

Fig. 7. LCOH and percentage of renewable electricity for different combinations with on-grid condition.

9
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Table 8 settings with integrated solar PV and wind will often reduce LCOH
Required storage capacities in Halmstad. in off-grid cases, cf. Table 11.
n 1 2 3 4 In the on-grid cases, the requirement of hydrogen capacity is
Off grid case
reduced further. We should note that the combined solar PV and
Storage (kg) wind do not necessarily reduce the hydrogen capacity, as the grid
Wind 1440 2030 2157 2174 electricity is used as flexible source of electricity. Also, when solar
Solar 1321 2237 2606 2829 PV is used when installed capacity increases, the storage require-
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 1121 1356 1344 1291
ment increases in all cities. This is again due to the seasonal vari-
Storage/H2 production
Wind 0.1607 0.1345 0.1164 0.1040 ation of electricity supply. In the on-grid cases, the selection
Solar 0.2720 0.2590 0.2481 0.2415 decision between solar PV and wind brings a better result and is
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0828 0.0639 0.0540 0.0475 therefore more important than the choices of combining them.
On grid case
Storage (kg)
Wind 683 916 938 927 6.4. Electricity trading
Solar 1272 2111 2409 2565
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 1079 1346 1286 1203 In the on-grid cases, we have the opportunity of buying and
Storage/H2 production
Wind 0.0237 0.0283 0.0274 0.0261
selling electricity from and to the grid. When the power supply
Solar 0.0452 0.0664 0.0719 0.0742 from solar PV and wind is larger than the electrolyzer capacity, the
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0325 0.0352 0.0320 0.0291 system sells surplus to the grid. On the other hand, when the supply
of solar PV and wind is insufficient and the time is between 20:00
and 7:00 (the off-peak time), buying from the grid occurs. We sum
Table 9 the total selling and buying volume of electricity, and calculate the
Required storage capacities in Gothenburg. percentage of buying electricity, with the results in Fig. 8.
Obviously, increasing the installed capacity expands the trading
n 1 2 3 4
volume, especially in windy cities such as Gothenburg and Stock-
Off grid case
holm, where wind power contributes a significant amount.
Storage (kg)
Wind 2242 2677 2626 2529
Combing solar PV and wind has the advantage of reducing the
Solar 1488 2513 2923 3173 buying percentage, with such impact being greater in Mariestad
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 1481 1523 1381 1278 and Halmstad, whereas in Stockholm and Gothenburg, the com-
Storage/H2 production bination has some improvement compared with the wind solution,
Wind 0.1576 0.1267 0.1078 0.0955
but not to a significant degree.
Solar 0.3011 0.2891 0.2797 0.2742
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0794 0.0569 0.0459 0.0398
On grid case 6.5. Remarks of full-grid alternative
Storage (kg)
Wind 1120 1322 1277 1211
Solar 1442 2396 2742 2933 This subsection briefly describes the situation that grid elec-
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 977 1121 1081 1021 tricity is supplied whenever an electricity shortage from the solar
Storage/H2 production PV and/or wind occurs. Therefore, the electrolyzer is fully operating
Wind 0.0362 0.0383 0.0352 0.0324 with CFel 100%. In previous subsections, the electricity buying and
Solar 0.0510 0.0752 0.0819 0.0851
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0277 0.0280 0.0259 0.0240
selling price is set as two multiplies of the price at Nordpool, and
considered as the reference price. We further examine two cases,
with low and high electricity prices, which correspond to multi-
plication factors of one and three, respectively.
Table 10
First, the full-grid situation further reduces LCOH, mainly due to
Required storage capacities in Stockholm.
the full utilization of electrolyzer. With a low electricity price level,
n 1 2 3 4 we intend to have a lower hydrogen storage capacity associated
Off grid case with solar PV and wind, as the grid electricity can be viewed as a
Storage (kg) flexible and cheap input for hydrogen. With a high electricity price
Wind 3157 3111 2785 2532
level, LCOH is low when the installed capacity of solar PV and wind
Solar 1509 2548 2925 3142
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 2052 1739 1439 1241
increases. As there is a chance of selling the electricity back to the
Storage/H2 production grid, the system then becomes electricity-producing-oriented
Wind 0.1390 0.0996 0.0814 0.0704 because the revenue from the grid becomes more significant.
Solar 0.2999 0.2869 0.2741 0.2662
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0765 0.0491 0.0377 0.0313
On grid case 6.6. Selection of system settings
Storage (kg)
Wind 1544 1516 1363 1244 In this study, we have investigated nine cities in Sweden
Solar 1414 2333 2599 2730 €ping, Karlstad, Borla
€nge, with results similar to Mariestad;
(Linko
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 638 465 381 326
Storage/H2 production Falsterbo-Skåne, Hoburg-Gotland, with results similar/better than
Wind 0.0443 0.0388 0.0336 0.0300 Stockholm). In all cities, the solar PV output exhibits a similar
Solar 0.0501 0.0733 0.0779 0.0796 pattern for supporting the hydrogen production. The difference
Wind(n) þ solar(n) 0.0165 0.0108 0.0086 0.0073 comes from the wind turbine alternative, as the wind speed differs
largely among the locations. Here again, the results of four

10
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

Table 11
An overview of system selection.

Wind m/s Off-grid On-grid

Mariestad 3.52 500 kW windþ500 kW solar Need grid to reduce LCOH

LCOH ¼ 153 SEK/kg LCOH ¼ 72 SEK/kg
Focus on solar
Wind should be excluded
Halmstad 4.26 500 kW windþ500 kW solar Need grid to reduce LCOH
LCOH ¼ 129 SEK/kg LCOH ¼ 72 SEK/kg
Solar is a better solution
Wind will improve CF, and green production
Gothenburg 5.21 500 kW windþ500 kW solar Combine wind and solar, LCOH reduces
LCOH ¼ 94 SEK/kg LCOH ¼ 62 SEK/kg and stable
Possible main production for grid
Stockholm 6.72 500 kW wind Definitely main production for grid, scale effect
LCOH ¼ 71 SEK/kg LCOH ¼ 35 SEK/kg

Fig. 8. Electricity trading and percentage of electricity of buying from the grid (note: the lines should read to the right vertical axis as percentage, and the columns should read to
the left vertical axis as MWh).

representative cities are presented. A summary of system selection
is given in Table 11.
In the off-grid situation, the combination of wind and solar PV is
a good alternative, except the case of Stockholm, where a strong
wind and high power outputs exist. It seems necessary to introduce
the on-grid solution in cities where wind speed is low (Mariestad
and Halmstad), to reduce LCOH. Also, when the on-grid solution is
possible, the wind alterative should be avoided in Mariestad (less
wind) and solar PV should be avoided in Stockholm (strong wind).
In other two cities, a combination of wind and solar present a good
solution for the hydrogen production, and it provides the oppor-
tunity of selling renewable electricity to the grid.
When wind speed is strong and very strong (Gothenburg,
Stockholm), there should be a consideration of large wind turbine
capacity, as the production of electricity can be dedicated to the
grid, whereas hydrogen production becomes “by-products”; see the
low buying and therefore high selling percentage of the grid elec-
tricity in Fig. 8.
Also note that solar PV efficiency has been significantly
improved, and its cost could be dramatically reduced in Europe in
the future [37]. Therefore, the system settings, as well as LCOH are
worth re-examining accordingly, by adapting the framework in this
study.

11
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin
7. Conclusion
This study investigates the opportunity to produce hydrogen
with renewable electricity in refueling stations in Sweden. With
hourly solar radiation data, wind speed data, and electricity price,
we use a simulation to exam the cost components of producing
hydrogen. Furthermore, we have investigated the effect of
combining solar PV and wind as the renewable input, and the al-
ternatives of on-grid and off-grid for hydrogen production. This
study presents a simple and transparent model for estimating the
hydrogen costs. As expected, LCOH differs in various locations,
which is in line with the results in Brey et al. [21]. Our results show
that the range of LCOH is between 71 and 153 SEK/kg in the off-grid
cases, and 35e72 SEK/kg in the on-grid cases. With profit margins
included and using natural gas reforming, Brey et al. [21] estimated
5V/kg as the best cost, with electrolysis corresponding to 11 V/kg
and 9V/kg as the breakeven cost to replace petrol, for hydrogen
refueling stations in Spain. Thus, our study is very encouraging for
producing renewable hydrogen in Sweden, particularly when the
on-grid option is included (recall that 1V ¼ 10 SEK).
The following conclusions are important for managers, in-
vestors, and policy makers in developing sustainable hydrogen
systems. First, in order to reduce LCOH, it is important to have a
means to stabilize the electricity supply for hydrogen production, as
the supplement for the inputs of solar PV or wind. Since the main
component of LCOH comes from the initial investment, the cost
level is strongly associated with the capacity factor of the electro-
lyzer. In the off-grid case, combining wind and solar PV should
reduce LCOH, except in the location where wind speed is very
strong. Nevertheless, after the combination, LCOH still remains high
or relatively high. We further suggest integrating the grid electricity
into hydrogen production.
Second, the on-grid option provides a good opportunity to
reduce LCOH, and it also presents other advantages. In locations
with low wind speed, the on-grid option is an important condition
for a reasonable LCOH. In case the wind speed is strong, the on-grid
option is again good, as it creates the chance to sell renewable
electricity back to the grid, thereby balancing the amount of buying.
This is the best situation for producing cheap hydrogen and it also
presents the chance to supply more renewable electricity and green
hydrogen to the energy system. We also note that, in windy cities
such as Gothenburg and Stockholm, the buying percentage can
easily be reduced below 50% (Fig. 8). Thus, even if the hydrogen
production buys electricity that is not defined as renewable from
the grid, it also contributes by selling back renewable electricity.
Therefore, to achieve a better performance from the entire energy
system perspective and to encourage the use of renewable re-
sources, hydrogen could be defined as green even if the hydrogen is
being produced from on-grid electricity.
Thirdly, the hydrogen storage needs attention when considering
LCOH, as it is another significant part of initial investment. Because
12
Energy 241 (2022) 122906
solar PV has a strong seasonal pattern, whereas wind is intermit-
tent, combining solar PV and wind has the advantage of reducing
the capacity requirement of storage. In addition, it will be inter-
esting to examine the possibility of using storage after wind/solar
PV but before the electrolyzer, with a battery or other solutions, to
stabilize the supply of electricity to the electrolyzer. This remains a
topic of investigation for future studies.
Finally, another alternative of reducing LCOH is a reduction of
the overall initial investments, including electrolyzer, solar PV,
wind, and storage. This can be realized by expanding the produc-
tion scale as the investment cost can be pressed down along with
its large size, and therefore LCOH. For instance, an electrolyzer with
1 MW capacity would significantly reduce the investment cost per
kW capacity. Another suggestion is to postpone the investment, as
several studies have predicated a significant upcoming reduction in
investment costs coupled with a reduced price of renewable elec-
tricity [7,11].
Regarding future research, it will be interesting to see alterna-
tive integration of solar PV/wind with hydro power, which is also
renewable. However, we need to be aware of the large capacity of
hydro power, so it needs to be adopted for hydrogen production in a
decentralized system with a small electrolyzer capacity, such as
refueling stations. It is also crucial to investigate the possible
development paths of the hydrogen market. Understanding the
hydrogen market diffusion will provide different scenarios of
electricity supply and hydrogen production, which will then guide
possible solutions for reducing LCOH and sustainable hydrogen
applications. If a scaled-up market is expected, and if the demand of
hydrogen can be integrated with other applications, such as de-
mand for fuel-cell-driven trains, the role of the refueling station
will change, and consequently its cost will alter. From a policy and
definition of color-coding perspective, should hydrogen be labeled
differently depending on the local conditions for the production of
electricity?
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was financed by Familjen Kamprads Stiftelse
20200103, which is highly appreciated.
Appendix
Hourly electricity output of 250 kW solar PV and wind in year
2016
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin Energy 241 (2022) 122906

References [2] Moriarty P, Honnery D. Prospects for hydrogen as a transport fuel. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(31):16029e37.
[3] Cardella U, Decker L, Klein H. Roadmap to economically viable hydrogen
[1] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. In-depth analysis of the Swedish
€rdjupad liquefaction. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(19):13329e38.
climate transition in 2020, Climate and Air in Focus. (in Swedish, Fo
€llningen 2020, Klimat och luft i fokus) [4] Acar C, Dincer I. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production options for
analys av den svenska klimatomsta
better environment. J Clean Prod 2019;218:835e49.
2020. Report 6945, ISBN 978-91-620-6945-2.
[5] Dawood F, Anda M, Shafiullah GM. Hydrogen production for energy: an

13
O. Tang, J. Rehme and P. Cerin
overview. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(7):3847e69.
[6] Nikolaidis P, Poullikkas A. A comparative overview of hydrogen production
processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:597e611.
[7] Kakoulaki G, Kougias I, Taylor N, Dolci F, Moya J, Ja €ger-Waldau A. Green
hydrogen in EuropeeA regional assessment: substituting existing production
with electrolysis powered by renewables. Energy Convers Manag 2021;228:
113649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113649.
[8] Baeyens J, Zhang H, Nie J, Appels L, Dewil R, Ansart R, Deng Y. Reviewing the
potential of bio-hydrogen production by fermentation. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110023.
[9] Deng J, Li H, Hu J, Liu Z. A new wind speed scenario generation method based
on spatiotemporal dependency structure. Renew Energy 2021;163:1951e62.
[10] European Commission. A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe, vol.
53; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. Brussels, Belgium.
[11] EU. Hydrogen generation in Europe: overview of key costs and benefits. Eu-
ropean Union; 2020. https://doi.org/10.2833/122757.
[12] Hardman S, Chandan A, Shiu E, Steinberger-Wilckens R. Consumer attitudes to
fuel cell vehicles post trial in the United Kingdom. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41(15):6171e9.
[13] Abdalla AM, Hossain S, Nisfindy OB, Azad AT, Dawood M, Azad AK. Hydrogen
production, storage, transportation and key challenges with applications: a
review. Energy Convers Manag 2018;165:602e27. 2018.
[14] Li S, Kang Q, Baeyens J, Zhang HL, Deng YM. Hydrogen production: state of
technology, IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science, vol. 544;
2020, 012011.
[15] Tang O, Rehme J. An investigation of renewable certificates policy in Swedish
electricity industry using an integrated system dynamics model. Int J Prod
Econ 2017;194:200e13.
[16] Tlili O, Mansilla C, Robinius M, Syranidis K, Reuss M, Linssen J, Andre J, Perez Y,
Stolten D. Role of electricity interconnections and impact of the geographical
scale on the French potential of producing hydrogen via electricity surplus by
2035. Energy 2019;172:977e90.
[17] Ogden JM. Prospects for building a hydrogen energy infrastructure. Annu Rev
Energy Environ 1999;24(1):227e79.
[18] Schenk NJ, Moll HC, Potting J, Benders RM. Wind energy, electricity, and
hydrogen in The Netherlands. Energy 2007;32(10):1960e71.
[19] Tang O, Rehme J, Cerin P, Huisingh D. Hydrogen production in the Swedish
power sector: considering operational volatilities and long-term un-
certainties. Energy Pol 2021;148:111990. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2020.111990.
[20] Schwoon M. A tool to optimize the initial distribution of hydrogen filling
stations. Transport Res Transport Environ 2007;12(2):70e82.
[21] Brey JJ, Carazo AF, Brey R. Exploring the marketability of fuel cell electric
vehicles in terms of infrastructure and hydrogen costs in Spain. Renew Sustain
14
Energy 241 (2022) 122906
Energy Rev 2018;82:2893e9.
[22] Demir ME, Dincer I. Cost assessment and evaluation of various hydrogen
delivery scenarios. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(22):10420e30.
[23] Petrakopoulou F, Robinson A, Loizidou M. Exergetic analysis and dynamic
simulation of a solar-wind power plant with electricity storage and hydrogen
generation. J Clean Prod 2016;113:450e8.
[24] Mehrjerdi H. Off-grid solar powered charging station for electric and
hydrogen vehicles including fuel cell and hydrogen storage. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2019;44(23):11574e83.
[25] Campín ~ ez-Romero A, Colmenar-Santos A, Pe rez-Molina C, Mur-Pe rez F.
A hydrogen refuelling stations infrastructure deployment for cities supported
on fuel cell taxi roll-out. Energy 2018;148:1018e31.
[26] Zhang HL, Baeyens J, Degre ve J, Cace
res G. Concentrated solar power plants:
review and design methodology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:466e81.
[27] EU Science Hub. The European Commission's science and knowledge service.
2020. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/PVGIS/tools/hourly-radiation.
[28] Manwell JF, McGowan JG, Rogers AL. Wind energy explained, theory, design
and application. Wiley; 2003.
[29] Homer Energy. https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.11/
wind_resource_variation_with_height.html; 2021.
[30] Hsu SA, Meindl EA, Gilhousen DB. Determining the power-law wind-profile
exponent under near-neutral stability conditions at sea. J Appl Meteorol
1994;33:757e65.
[31] Şen Z, Altunkaynak A, Erdik T. Wind velocity vertical extrapolation by
extended power law. Adv Meteorol 2012;2012. Article ID 178623.
[32] Johnson P, Howell S, Duck P. PDE methods for stochastic dynamic optimisa-
tion: an application to wind power generation with energy storage. Phil Trans
Math Phys Eng Sci 2017. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0301.
[33] Bauer L, Matysik S. Compare power curves of wind turbines. The Big Portal for
Wind Energy 2020. https://en.wind-turbine-models.com/powercurves.
[34] Spot Nordpool. The nordic electricity exchange and the nordic model for a
liberalized electricity market. 2020. www.nordpoolspot.com.
[35] Siyal SH, Mentis D, Howells M. Economic analysis of standalone wind-
powered hydrogen refueling stations for road transport at selected sites in
Sweden. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:9855e65.
[36] Uddin GS, Tang O, Sahamkhadam M, Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Yahya M, Cerin P,
Rehme J. Analysis of forecasting models in an electricity market under vola-
tility. Asian Development Bank Institute; 2021. ADBI Working Paper Series
1212, Available: https://www.adb.org/publications/analysis-forecasting-
models-electricity-market-undervolatility.
[37] Zhang HL, Van Gerven T, Baeyens J, Degre ve J. Photovoltaics: reviewing the
European feed-in-tariffs and changing PV efficiencies and costs. Sci World J
2014;2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/404913. Article ID 404913.